Wednesday, May 02, 2012

Gloating Over the Australian Report on Threats

In his report on alleged email deaths threats received by Australian climate scientists last year, the Australian Privacy Commissioner determined that, in his opinion, "...10 emails do not contain threats of harm against the recipients or the ANU." Of the 11th, he wrote:

I give separate consideration to the email describing a participant's behaviour and comments at the off-campus event which the ANU regarded as threatening. In my view, the exchange as described in the email could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat. In its reasons for decision, the ANU stated that it did not report this incident to the AFP because the incident occurred off-campus and it is incumbent upon people who are directly involved in an incident to make a first person report to the police. The ANU advised that University security encouraged the staff member to report the incident to police. I consider the danger to life or physical safety in this case to be only a possibility, not a real chance.

(Emphasis mine.)

For some reason that is difficult for me to understand, people like Anthony Watts find this a reason to gloat.

An "intimidating" email "perhaps alluding to a threat" with a "possibility" of danger to life or physical safety hardly sounds innocent or something worth cheering about -- particularly if you're the one who received it. It sounds to me exactly like how it was taken -- as a death threat. Is the recipient supposed to wait until the Privacy Commissioner moves the email from the category of "possibility" to the category of "real chance" before being frightened?

Given the climate surrounding the Australian carbon tax debate last year, and the death threat captured on video against Hans Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (the one scrubbed by Anthony Watts), and knowing of the death threats against US scientists (reported on by ABC News), one could hardly blame Australian scientists for being jumpy and requesting protection when suspect emails start coming in. The recipient of an email is the one who decides if it's a threat, and they can't wait months for a ruling.

But that's the state of some in the blogosphere these days, where many like Watts have no hesitation about using such threats, including death threats, as more ammunition for whatever they think their cause is.

These years -- and unfortunately, I doubt they are finished -- will be viewed as an extremely ugly period in the history of science. People like Watts and Morano will not fare well in the judgement of the future, and it won't be their arguments they're remembered for, or even their denial of science, but their willingness to distort, contort, and bully people who are simply trying to do the best science they can. Their best hope is probably that, like most computer formats, HTML fades into obscurity and will be unreadable by whatever chips, goggles, and implants serve up the reading material of the future.

Unless this era gets labeled something like the Watts-Morano Thermal Maximum (WMTM), in which case they will be remembered for millions of years.

I cannot tell you how relieved I am to se that the "death threats" were, as usual, bogus. Too bad you have to torture out a theory of moral outrage about the fact that people are celebrating a lack of violent or incitatory expression.

Like most skeptics, I frequently express my hope that "climate scientist" life expectancies will be quite long. When the Day After Tomorrow slides to 2020 and then 2030 and then We're Not Sure, but Any Minute Now, I want you all to be doubled over under the burden of ridicule.

David,I'm not allowed to comment on this topic now at WUWT. But I should point out here that the decision is being misrepresented in some quarters. The Privacy Commissioner had before him an FOI application for the abusive emails, which ANU had refused because it believed that release of the emails would endanger the people concerned. He had to decide if the release would endanger them, not if the threats were dangerous. He's not a security commissioner.

Your top para is from his finding and the last sentence relates to that risk of release. He set this out explicitly in the next sentence:"The question is how release of the documents could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any person. In other words, the question is whether release of the documents could be expected to create the risk, not whether the documents reflect an existing credible threat. "

It would appear that just as one tree-ring sample was enough to construct a hockey stick, so one vaguely threatening letter is enough to launch a victimisation campaign. Post-normal scientific logic at it's best in both cases. It would appear that 97% of the documents showed no threatening messages. Is that enough for a consensus?

"The recipient of an email is the one who decides if it's a threat, and they can't wait months for a ruling."

Really? stanley fish would be proud of you.

Consider this:

Dear Phil,

I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I'd really like to talk to a few of these "Auditors" in a dark alley.

Interesting. When I received this mail written by Santer to Jones, I decided that it was a threat. In fact it's a more dangerous threat than if it was made directly to me.Given that I'm a recipient of this mail, I'm the one who gets to decide. Right?

One of the things that amaze me is that anyone with brains would expect some pretty violent opinions about AGW and yet it appears to come as a surprise to climate scientists. I conclude that they’re closeted in ivory towers (now more secure), lacking in empathy and a bit stupid.

Perhaps they are mislead by the warmist movement who savage the oil barons as the enemy of CO2 reduction when in reality the true resistance comes from ordinary people. You know the ones, people who drive, people who pay utility bills, people who like the odd holiday abroad, the people who work in industry, the… well pretty much anyone who does anything. OK, not everyone has woken up to how cutting CO2 would change their lives but it will happen. And climate scientists thought people would thank them for this?

Of course scientists say they don’t set policy and I suppose the person who told Herod that he’d be supplanted by a Jewish baby boy didn’t actually tell him to go out and slaughter infants, so that’s ok. NOT.

That doesn’t mean that scientists are wrong to alert the World to potential catastrophe but they need to be aware of what the consequences are. Such an awareness should result in great humility, openness and caution, features that don’t come across from those I’ve seen express their opinions on climate. Instead I see arrogance, bullishness, a lack of attention to detail, secrecy, turf protectionism, intellectual property rights above public scrutiny, greed, etc.

Will future generations lambast the likes of Anthony Watts for delaying action on CO2? Nah, not even if CO2 is a real problem. Because his concerns are the public concerns, he just expresses them for all to see. The real bad guys of the future will be those who saw there was a problem and managed to make it look like a fraud. I mean, if climate scientists can exaggerate about death threats they can exaggerate anything…

Nick, give it up. Your effort to spin this is beyond pathetic. The commissioner's exact wording in section 10 is:

"10. Having inspected the documents, I have determined that 10 of the documents, in the form of emails, do not contain threats to kill or threats of harm. These documents contain abuse in the sense that they contain insulting and offensive language."

It's as clear as can be that this is his assessment of the contents of the documents and has nothing to do with whether or not releasing them might pose a risk to the recipients. It would take the combined efforts of Hansen and Mann to wriggle out of this one and, to your credit, you're not in their league.

As has been mentioned above, the original story was "several" Aussie scientists had been subjected to a "campaign" of "death threats".

So it's very simple. Either the story is true, and there exists (i) evidence of statements such as "I am going to kill you" or similar ("death threats") (ii) issued repeadetly and over an extended period of time (a "campaign") (iii) to a group of two or more Aussie climate scientists ("several"). Or teh story is untrue.

We know now that, not only is there no evidence to support ONE of the three elements of the original story, but that NONE of the three elements of the original story was supported by evidence. It was entirely untrue.

What is devastatingly telling is that this whole episode is an epitome of the entire AGW scare story. First, take your evidence. Next, smother it with wishful thinking and a healthy dose of imagination to produce the desired outcome (hockey sticks, disappearing Himalayan glaciers, increasing hurricanes, whatever). Then, invoke the precautionary principle. Finally, if asked to produce any evidence simply refuse, obfuscate, procrastinate or, if all else fails, change the subject.

Sevad said..."The commissioner's exact wording in section 10 is: "10. Having inspected the documents, I have determined that 10 of the documents,..."

Yes, but there were 11.

The Commissioner was adjudicating an FOI claim for exemption, not evaluating the danger in the threats. He had to decide whether there was danger in releasing the emails. He found that they could be released. He made very clear in the finding that his decision was limited to that question.

And Anon, Graham Readfearn has a collection of samples from emails received by other scientists.

You've been owned, mate. Get over it. Enjoy the burst in traffic. You'll fade back to internet obscurity once this is over.

Nick Stokes. Why don't you ask Judith Curry about her hate mail? At least she's showing some common sense in this whole AGW scam, and getting villified for it, by both sides. This will be like a fart in an elevator in comparison.

"If you want a sample of what some Australian climate scientists were receiving during this period (not the ANU ones), Graham Readfern has some. They can be threatening. Not safe for a family blog.

REPLY: So what? There are no explicit death threats there, and I get this kind of mail from anonymous cowards every week. Again, you’ve got nothing of substance, and the adjudicant agreed that there were no death threats, the police don’t see enough to start an investigation, and the university isn’t doing any followup. You lost. Stop whining. Very telling that you run over to Appells blog and say you’ve been banned when you haven’t. But, you have been given an extra level of moderation for post approval because you’ve clearly lost your sense of rational thought in this thread. – Anthony"

Nick Stokes said of the ten non-threatening messages, "Yes, but there were 11."

OK, what does the commissioner say about the 11th?

"One document, again in the form of an email, contains a recollection of an exchange which occurred during an off-campus event sponsored by members of the Climate Change Institute and other governmental agencies. The ANU responded to the conduct and comments described in the email as a security threat."

And:

14. I give separate consideration to the email describing a participant's behaviour and comments at the off-campus event which the ANU regarded as threatening. In my view, the exchange as described in the email could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat. In its reasons for decision, the ANU stated that it did not report this incident to the AFP because the incident occurred off-campus and it is incumbent upon people who are directly involved in an incident to make a first person report to the police. The ANU advised that University security encouraged the staff member to report the incident to police. I consider the danger to life or physical safety in this case to be only a possibility, not a real chance."

Is this really the best you've got, Nick? Is your defence of this nonsense really based on this 11th message? That message merited all the headlines about death threats? I've read lots of your posts on other websites and always considered they were well made even though I didn't agree with all that you said. Please give this one up as you"re beginning to lose credibility.

The baseless threats claims from these uni people don't say anything about AGW or your own views: they just reflect poorly on the bunch of easily-spooked, spineless, premature cli-maxers at ANU. Stop defending the indefensible.

David,You still offer no proof of there ever being any actual death threats.I don't bother to follow you, but since you used me as an example of a wicked denialist, I think I am justified in posting a comment: The pattern of fraud, hype, deceit, deception and manipulation by AGW believers is widespread in your community and your posts do nothing to change that.Sincerely,hunter

When someone exaggerates threats and screams all atwitter, "We must do something about this immediately, immediately, immediately!" and then ask us for a harumph, are we all obliged to be lemmings and answer with a harumph?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN99jshaQbY

I think not. The victim card was played and resulted in epic failure. Sorry, but no harumph for you! :-)

David:Now see what you have gone and done. I had no desire to wade into the Morass you create and I counter your claims on other web sites. However posting on this issue, in the way you did deserves a reply on your turf.A campaign? NO!Received by several? NO!Death Threats? NO!Just more of the same fairy tales we have been hearing from the Chicken Little Brigade from its newest Incarnation, The Climatologists and their puppets, such as you.Mike Davis

The last time I visited your blog was when you were pushing this invented story about death threats as though it was true.

Now that what everyone knew at the time has been confirmed - i.e. that there were no death threats - I find myself visiting again and discover you are still trying to weasel a death threat story out of it.

Is this what passes for journalistic integrity these days? Have you been taking lessons from Richard Black at the BBC?

You went all out over a claim that has proven to be nothing more than a couple of idiots making a rude comment. People like you smeared a whole section of the community because of some lies by dishonest people who firstly exaggerated the incident and then refused to back up their assertions - because they had no evidence - kinda sounds familiar by now !

Thanks for clarifying that the Commissioner was evaluating the threat in the release of the emails, not whether the emails contained threats in their content. I find it difficult to believe that the university would feel it necessary to place the safety of their employees in any kind of jeopardy in order to satisfy an FOI request, or I would hope not. If there was any doubt at all, then their employees' wellbeing would take priority, otherwise I am certain they would be in breach of statutory employment laws.